Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The Fascist Guardian

His Grace had a Guardian article brought to his attention yesterday: ‘Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world’ by Thomas Hylland Eriksen. It rails against the ‘darker waters’ of the ‘anti-Islamist blogosphere’, with its ‘unmitigated hatred of the new Europe, aggressive denunciations of the "corrupted, multiculturalist power elites" and pejorative generalisations about immigrants, targeting Muslims in particular’.

Eriksen is right to point out:

Contributors to these websites, blogs and chat groups cannot merely be labelled "rightwing". One member of the Norwegian "Forum Against Islamisation" was also a member of the Socialist Left party. Others see themselves as the true heirs of social democratic values, or as the last carriers of the torch of the Enlightenment.

But he reveals a poor grasp of understanding of political philosophy when he observes:

Many talk about gender equality, some about social injustices and class. Others hold more conventional rightwing views, ranging from downright racism to paranoid conspiracy theories about Muslims plotting to take political control of western Europe.

Only in a left-wing perversion of reality could conventional right-wing philosophy be summarised as a spectrum ranging from racism to conspiracy theory. And Eriksen’s final paragraph is most revealing:

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Read that again: ‘...had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper...’

Presumably, Erikson is not talking about The Times or The Daily Telegraph (or is he?). The answer to the ages-old problem of evil is to immerse oneself in the spiritually edifying and politically enlightening pages of The Guardian: it will lead you into all truths for it is gods-breathed. Here we see the Left’s strategy for the eradication of dissent from state orthodoxy: they brainwash you to accept the globalist, warmist, ecumenical, third-way, middle-ground, europhile, multi-faith, multiculturalist mantra. They achieve this by forcing us to read The Guardian or by imposing a compulsory taxation to finance a state broadcaster whose philosophical worldview is distinctly Guardianesque. They destroy all competition, permitting a ‘mainstream media’ to arise which will be subject to state control and regulation. The recalcitrant and recidivist simply have their takeover bids blocked and licences removed: they fail the state’s ‘fit and proper’ test for media ownership. As dissent is crushed, contrary opinion is censored, and the liberty to associate freely is eradicated. This is Orwell’s nightmare vision: it is fascism. And it is not borne of ‘right-wing extremism’, but of the pages of the left-wing Guardian.

On this theme, His Grace received an email yesterday from Mr Rodney Atkinson. It is reproduced here:

What is Fascism? - the Left's (deliberate?) confusion.

Nazism (the National Socialist German Workers Party) and Fascism are not right wing nationalist movements, although fascists and some extreme nationalists have some attitudes in common. But the right wing nationalist in France, Jean Marie Le Pen joined the resistance to French fascism and fought against the Nazis in the Second World War. The socialist Francois Mitterand on the other hand was a member of the Nazi collaborating Vichy Government – and received an award "La Francisque" for his loyalty to the cause. Jacques Delors, that other founder of the present European Union and on the left of French politics, was in the French equivalent of the Hitler Youth!

In Britain Oswald Mosley, who was at one time in the Conservative Party and became a Labour Minister, was later to become the leader of the British Union of Fascists (invited by the young embryo euro-federalist Kenneth Clarke to speak at the Cambridge University Conservative Association!). The Fascist leader of Italy from 1925 to 1945, Benito Mussolini, had previously edited the newsletter of the Italian Socialist Party: "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merging of state and corporate power," he wrote. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." He doesn't exactly sound like Margaret Thatcher or Norman Tebbit does he? But he does rather sound like the Advocate General of the Left's favourite empire the European Union: "Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy and could be restrained without affecting freedom of speech."

Fascism, whose principal enemies are communism and liberal democracy, is in fact of the left, the right and the centre, just as its opponents are also to be found on the left, right and centre. It is in this very apolitical confusion and its ruthless desire for power and action, which makes Fascism so dangerous. Indeed Fascism appeals particularly to the so called centre, the ‘third way’ politicians, those who seek a half-baked mixture of left and right, of capitalism and socialism, and who seek nothing more than to wield power through the State. No wonder that Tony Blair fits so well into the European fascist tradition – third way, supra-nationalist, euro-federalist and corporatist – sustained by the donations of big business and big unions. Having sacrificed so much British democracy on the altar of European corporatism, Blair has, on retirement, obtained lucrative jobs in large supranational corporate institutions. It was, of course, the Liberal Lloyd George who said in 1936 that ‘Hitler is the greatest living German. It is a pity there are not more like him in England’.

The main elements of Fascism are: corporatism (that is the State granting of power to corporate bodies like businesses, unions, interest groups, churches etc), collectivism, State authoritarianism, supra-nationalism, centralism, political intolerance of alternatives, anti-free-trade and, nearly always, Roman Catholicism. The social and economic theories promoted by that Church since the end of the 19th century are specifically corporatist and based on the infallibility of the leader and on the subordination of the nation state and democracy to global religious leadership.

Left-wing socialists (a minority in the Labour Party) share the liberal conservative support for popular sovereignty, the authority of Parliament, common law, democratic nationhood and, nearly always, Protestantism. Orthodox Christianity, with no Pope-like figure, is also based on pluralism and nation states – ie Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Serb Orthodox etc. Orthodox countries were particularly cruelly suppressed by European Fascism with the aid of the Vatican during the Second World War and the suffering and ethnic cleansing of Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans continues this process today.

And when The Guardian joins in the attack on Serbs and the BBC allows its ‘comedians’ to attack anti-fascists like the late Norris McWhirter, we see that the dissection of Fascism into its constituent parts includes a large portion of socialism which merges almost seamlessly with that authoritarian/collectivist form of capitalism called corporatism. It is the Labour Party which is most under threat electorally from the BNP, not the Conservative Party, and it was of course the BBC who between 1937 and 1939 kept Churchill and his warnings of the Nazi menace off the air. And it is the very legal structure and State enforced financing of the BBC which is so inimitably corporatist and anti-democratic.

101 Comments:

An excellent summary of where we are, Dr Cranmer. I rank this article in significance and importance with Sean Gabb's 'Culture War: How The Conservatives Lost Britain..'The denial of a voice to those regarded as politically and socially heterodox is a clear symptom of this insidious, pervasive Protean menace.

It's all about getting your insult in first to obfuscate the language.

It is the same with the use of "abuse". Genuine cases of horrific child abuse are now categorised alongside those who give their children too many sugary drinks, or raise their children within a religious faith, or smoke in the same room as their children.

And that's why the anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestine movement always refer to the Gaza "Holocaust" or "ethnic cleansing" ... when in fact the exact opposite is true.

It's also why the left like to get their "Hateful" epithet in first. They know full well that it is them who are full of hate & vitriol but the quicker they drag debate down to personal attack then they can justify not having to deal with the actual substance of the debate ... after-all, why bother debating with a "denier" or "hater" or "extremist"

The "extremist, hateful, fascist, denying bigot" Ann Coulter gets the measure of them nicely in her latest book, "Demonic" - it's the law of The Mob.

The problem is that a number of the organisations being called extreme right wing are nothing of the sort. Many of there supporters clearly are not right-wing.I support the UKIP view of wanting Independence from the EU; why is such an idea right wing? Presumably, the Scots Nats are also extreme right wing as they want independence from the UK. I don't consider the EDL to be right wing; to me it is an organisation drawing attention to the increasing Islamisation of this country and wishing to retain traditional English values and way of life. The extreme left wing Guardian readers are all keen to associate the Norwegian shootings with the EDL in spite of there being no connection whatsoever; perhaps it it time to remind the public about the left wing dangers such as the Bader Meinhof gang. And we need to remember that every act of violence carried out by Islamic terrorists is a left-wing act of violence, simply on the basis that it cannot possibly be right-wing extremism.

I apologise Cranmer. I must have missed those "numerous" edicts. [It must be a recent imposition since I have watched many a youtube clip linked to from the comments].

Am I allowed to commend you readers to search YouTube for a talk by Pat Condell entitled "An illiberal consensus", where they will find the same sentiments as the ones you so eloquently express here, but in much plainer & more forceful terms?

" a left-wing perversion of reality"You are so right, or should I say correct? YG.It is time to blow off the dust on the old classic "Leftism Revisited" by the remarkable Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It set me straight years ago.

It's notable that being exposed to decades worth of Guardian values and anti-fascist teaching has not inoculated the contributors to the discussion boards of Comment is Free from being amongst the most anti-semitic cohort in modern Europe.

I used to believe that the Left-wing mind was essentially compassionate although misguided; and the Right more concerned with consequences (basing its thinking on the presupposition that Heaven on Earth is a utopian fantasy because of the propensity of man towards wickedness – and hence the support for liberty, security and freedom).

Today, I have come to a different view about the Left-wing mind. I have often noticed, through my reading of history and friendship with Left-wingers, that they tend to idolise and support regimes that have recorded against them an appalling record of Man’s inhumanity towards Man (for example, Che Guevara and the Gulag).

But I have repeatedly come back to the question: why is the Left-wing mind as it is?

I believe today that it is more than an ideology – it is a religion in which one of its chief components appeals (unwittingly) back to a pre-Christian era in which ancient Man (genuinely believed, perhaps because of some pre-ancient teaching) that in order to achieve the Good – a blood sacrifice is required (for example, the revolution).

In other words, aggression, violence, slaughter are part of the normal mental apparatus of the Left-wing mind. And without such ‘sacrifices’ – the Good cannot be achieved.

I think the late Malcolm Muggeridge put it far better than I could:

‘”The Great Liberal Death Wish" is a subject that I've given a lot of thought to and have written about, and it would be easy for me to read to you a long piece that I've written on the subject. But somehow in the atmosphere of this delightful college, I want to have a shot at just talking about this notion of the great liberal death wish as it has arisen in my life, as I've seen it, and the deductions I've made from it. I should also plead guilty to being responsible for the general heading of these lectures, namely, "The Humane Holocaust: The Auschwitz Formula.

‘Later on I want to say something about all this, showing how this humane holocaust, this dreadful slaughter that began with 50 million babies last year, will undoubtedly be extend-ed to the senile old and the mentally afflicted and mongoloid children, and so on, because of the large amount of money that maintaining them costs… Note this compassionate or humane holocaust, if, as I fear, it gains momentum, will quite put that other in the shade. And, as I shall try to explain, what is even more ironical, the actual considerations that led to the German holocaust were not, as is commonly suggested, due to Nazi terrorism, but were based upon the sort of legislation that advocates of euthanasia, or "mercy killing," in this country and in western Europe, are trying to get enacted. It's not true that the German holocaust was simply a war crime, as it was judged to be at Nuremberg. In point of fact, it was based upon a perfectly coherent, legally enacted decree approved and operated by the German medical profession before the Nazis took over power. In other words, from the point of view of the Guinness Book of Records you can say that in our mad world it takes about thirty years to transform a war crime into a compassionate act.’

This is a terribly selective and prejudiced analysis, with respect Your Grace. For example, there is a long association between Catholicism and liberal conservatism in Europe (e.g. the whole Christian-Democratic tradition, which has much in common with traditional Anglican Conservatism in England). And to point out only the sufferings of Orthodox Serbs at the hands of 'Catholic'-inspired groups, including the Bosnian Croats, and not to mention the grievous crimes meted out by Serbs towards Croats, and Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims, is wilfully deceitful.

Your issue appears to be with Mr Atkinson's email which is quoted in full; not His Grace's 'usually fine mind' (though if you believe the continental Christian Democratic tradition 'has much in common with Anglican Conservatism', His Grace would appreciate the details).

Mr Rodney Atkinson said in Cranmer’s blog that The main elements of Fascism are: corporatism, collectivism, State authoritarianism, supra-nationalism, centralism, political intolerance of alternatives, anti-free-trade and, nearly always, Roman Catholicism. How are these things Roman Catholic. State authoritarianism in religion was brought into England by Henry VIII when he made himself the absolute authority and it still illegal for a catholic to be Prime Minister or Chancellor in this country. In Ireland it was Protestants who ran the country and until fairly recently discriminated against catholics in their own country just as Mohammed did when he invaded and imposed Islam. It was freemasons who ruled Portugal and Mexico at different times and discriminated against catholics. Left wing Mao imposed communism in China. Yes it is possible to find example, of catholic intolerance such as the Inquisition but compare that with the dropping of an Atomic bomb on 2 cities in Japan only a few decades ago. Centralism in the Church applies to doctrine because there can only be one truth but that is not imposed on others. The idea that within the context of doctrine there may be many legitimate divergent views as to the political application is most definitely catholic. In fact, we see nowadays homosexuality being imposed as infallibly true by the left. Anti-free-trade is also not catholic. The Church clearly made mistakes in the past and continues to do so but these labels are dishonest.

Is talk of 'extreme left wing Guardian readers' rather close to the inflated language denounced in the article? One could argue not unlike a more eloquent, right-wing Comment is Free thread without the unadulterated bile.

The labels of 'right' and 'left' are now unhelpful most of the time anyway. Issues typically considered 'left' or 'right' are rarely the exclusive preserve of either. Those who unashamedly labelled themselves 'socialist' within the Labour Party were often anti-EU integration, Tony Benn specifically springs to mind. Similarly, on the right, one can point to Ken Clarke and note his desire for further EU integration. Indeed, views typically considered 'right' or 'left' almost always have proponents on either side of the political divide.

What has been labelled 'extreme left wing' here is perhaps better termed liberalism. Unlike all on the left or who term themselves 'socialist', liberalism - as has been rightly noted here - commits the fallacy of tolerating only prescribed tolerable views. Just as 'right wing' and Fascism are perhaps not interchangeable, the liberal intolerance of the Guardian is not necessarily a fair, or accurate, reflection of 'the left'. Rather, the Guardian panders to a particular brand of intolerant liberalism eschewed by many on the left.

Your Grace, I read your long quote of Mr Atkinson as implying broad agreement with his views on your part. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

Nonetheless, I would criticise your article as simplistic on other grounds. For instance, I think your suggestion that Fascism has more in common with socialism and centre-left liberalism than with liberal / moderate Conservatism is simplistic and tendentious. There were, after all, many in the 1930s British establishment of a distinctly Conservative disposition who sympathised with Hitler and were anti-semitic.

In terms of the similarities between Christian Democracy and Anglican Conservatism, I haven't made a detailed study of it, but the affinity I was pointing to is the combination of moderate, establishment political and religious conservatism, albeit that many of the religious tenets of the denominations in question are of course quite divergent.

It is a little bizarre to make a contribution upon His Grace's blog in which you assert: "...there is a long association between Catholicism and liberal conservatism in Europe (e.g. the whole Christian-Democratic tradition, which has much in common with traditional Anglican Conservatism in England)", and then to disclose: "I haven't made a detailed study of it...".

With enormous respect, His Grace has made such a study over a great many years, and he regrets to inform you that the 'terribly selective and prejudiced analysis' and 'simplistic bumph' is yours. Please, go and read a credible history of the relationship between Anglicanism and Conservatism, and then exlpain how that religio-political philosophy correlates or accords with the papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII, and Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI, which lay the foundations of Roman Catholic social teaching upon which the EU is constructed.

And when you've done that, please study the history of the Balkans with particular focus on the fascist Ustashi, and be sure to go to primary sources. His Grace will not be called 'wilfully deceitful' by the woefully ignorant.

It might be that the real difference between the ‘Right’ and the ‘Left’ lies in the way each side thinks.

The ‘Right’ tends to think along the lines of A is A and A is not non-A. That is an apple is an apple and not a banana.

The ‘Left’ thinks in terms of Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis. That is Truth + non-Truth = A new ‘truth’.

For example, Pre-born child + Woman’s right to choose = the option for electing for an abortion.

The new synthesis (killing of life) in turn becomes a new thesis which is then used to argue that if life can be terminated (with the support of the law) at one end of the spectrum of human life – then why not at the other end?

Another excellent psot and I concur entirely. YG, I'm very pleased you quoted Rodney Atkinson as I have struggled to explain to fools that Fascism isn't rightwing but I haven't the words to express myself correctly or effectively enough, now I have an answer of sorts.

Rebel Saint, very good post, earlier this month I also blogged the video you mention is the one regarding leftwing "injuries made by pins" is it not? :-)

Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Yet we allow these corporatist creeps to continue doing us all up like kippers. Why aren't we rising up and bursting this elitist bubble? What will it take for people to stand up and shake this load of socialist/EUSSR ordure from their tax-burdened shoulders?

I remember from my long-ago student days that the popular, charismatic 'student leader' of the left was usually a 25 year old perpetual student, whose main preoccupation was denying the right to speak on the university campus of anyone with whose views they disagreed.

At that period I read the Guardian. I finally gave it up, after a period of increasing disenchantment, when one of their regular writers on foreign affairs wrote about Burma. He praised it to the skies for being anti-imperialist and anti-western - though what he was accurately describing was a classic fascist state.

For anyone who wants to compare the current growing illiberalism of the Left in Western countries with the implementation of nazi beliefs in Germany (especially their attitude to those ethnic Germans, both children and adults, whose mental & physical characteristics were deemed imperfect), the best book I have read is Michael Burleigh's "The Third Reich".

Regarding the attitude of the churches to the nazis, Burleigh's book indicates that, though there were collaborators and opponents in all churches, it was the Catholic Church which (perhaps because it had a stronger counter-culture of its own) probably yielded least to the nazis. Too many of the Protestent Churches meekly became part of the German National Church.

The difference between Left and Right is that the Left sees the problem of Evil as external to man while the Right sees the problem of Evil as internal to man. The Left believes "Man is intrinsically good, but he is corrupted by poor social organization." (Capitalism, patriarchy, monotheistic religion and many other examples) Left wing policies are characterized 1) by changing the social organization to remove external influences that induce evil behavior and 2) freeing the authentic self to act upon its authentic desires. The Left gets very angry when people do not respond as expected to its very reasonable social modifications, and so resorts to coercion to make them respond properly. It never ends well.

His Grace is clearly riled. I bow to your superior knowledge on Catholic social teaching. However, I feel you are being disingenuous in dismissing altogether any affinity between political Christian conservatism of the Anglican-Conservative and Catholic-Christian Democrat varieties. Be that as it may.

You do, however, also ignore my points about the Hitlerian sympathies of many pre-war Conservatives, and about the atrocities committed by Serbs against Croats and Muslims. That doesn't mean that Croats haven't also been guilty of similar atrocities, which they clearly have. But your Grace is trying to force things into excessively black and white categories, methinks.

I have been a card carrying member of the Conservative party for many years but secretly admired Anthony Wedgewood-Benn , the darling of the left. It struck me reading this article that what attracted me was his defence of parliamentary democracy. Parliament has been sidelined to such an extent that is no more than a county council taking its orders from Brussels. Tony Benn stood up for what was fought long and hard for; the right of free speech that so easily could now be curtailed because of the phone tapping saga.

Your Grace, I am not sure if the EU was based on the social teaching of the Catholic Church but there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. There is a lot I do not like about the EU and some of it I dislike precisely because it does not correspond with Catholic teaching. Perhaps I am wrong but I would welcome some enlightenment. It would be better I think if rather than very general braod statements, we could have practical examples of EU policies with which we disagree and which are also in accord with Catholic social teaching. That way I will have something to analyze.

Following on from Carl Jacobs' comment (12.52), I am a member of several environmental or 'Green' groups; I support a scientific approach to our increasing environmental problems, which are likely to have a serious impact on our lives.

The rapidly growing Green movement shares these concerns. But I am well aware that the great majority of 'Greens' are liberal-leftists. Many are 'spiritually minded' - which means for most of them some form of pantheism, recognised or unrecognised.

Most are nice, kind people. But they have the view that Carl describes - get rid of all the 'evil' things that he lists, and all will be love, joy, happiness and peace. I often wonder how long it will be before they start taking a more robust line in rooting these 'evils' out (there are a only few negligible extremist groups at present, as in most groupings). They lack, of course, any clear theology or idea of Original Sin.

Another brilliant article, Your Grace. I do try to read "big books" now and again, often winding up frustrated over heavy tomes weighted with crepuscular logic and dripping with barely comprehensible verbiage designed to impress, rather than clarify. So, I must say that over the years I have not come across a better treatment of this complex topic. Funny, how so much can be covered with so few words. It will be my goal to shamelessly emulate your way, if this is achievable, as I plod to better order my ideas and try to get a handle on this truly mad language we call English.

Concerning Catholic social teaching - I am no expert, but the present Pope has many times criticised the anti-Christian direction the EU is going in.

There is a long article, well worth reading, in the July-August online website of Standpoint, by George Weigel - "Benedict XVI and the Future of the West" - in which the EU's efforts (and Western liberals generally) to destroy Christianity and traditional families and morality are clearly describeed.

Many others have already made this observation but the tragedy in Norway could prompt the authorities to regulate the internet and, thus, restrict free speech. When I look at our present government for a champion who could be counted on to uphold free speech, my heart sinks to my boots.

D. Singh's posts demonise the left by characterising as left-wing anything of which he disapproves, including the misuse of dialectic by those promoting or opting for an abortion, though it is doubtful if are actually applying that.

I do not believe that the desire for a blood sacrifice has any part in the psychology of the "pro-choice" movement. Such a desire may be an element in uprisings of all kinds, especially of the young, and works to create a sense of crisis which causes people instinctively to turn to or hold onto strong leaders, new or established. Within Christianity the remembrance of the blood sacrifice of Jesus (an improvement on what went before) has the same effect, though a part of the low church seems to rely more on shouting and half-drownings to attain that.

Norway is/was a bastion of progressive enlightened smugness, one of the reasons why their counterparts here, are being so aggressive, is they know he exclusively targeted them, not the expected target they 'knew' a 'racist' would select. They presumed their white skin would 'automatically' protect them from the white 'racist'....an example of them secretly using a colour chart on the sly, when making the big decisions, same as housing, and education.

These events aren't part of their aloof managerial strategy of safely bossing the people about from a safe altitude, another reason why they're so rattled.

And that's why the photo's got that caption, instinctively, they've lashed out and removed some inconvenient facet of normal democratic procedure....just for starters.

With the standard issue dressing up and framing of their enemies as being 100% directly responsible for their action of smashing the spotlight of open public scrutiny, and denying the 'Justice' system the all important disinfectant of sunlight, all, in the name of fighting fascists of course.

That makes them evil, and that's why I oppose their visible destructive ideology and methods, not because they are 'left-wing'.

Oh dear, I thought this post was actually quite brilliant. It was going so well until

"...and, nearly always, Roman Catholicism"

I'd like this one explained actually. As the Church was the only one actively working against the Nazis, German Catholics were the only ones that consistently voted against the Nazis, and Hitler's Nazi-Christian Church was explicitly of Protestant flavour, I truly have to wonder how this connection was made.

Italy? Where the choice was between non-activity against Mussolini and expulsion?

Or Spain? Where the choice was between freedom under Franco or slaughter under the socialists?

I find it risible, that you can then create a completely new rule for the Orthodox Churches under Fascism, as if Hitler left Catholicism alone (or even as if Catholics were treated well under fascist regimes).

This definitely needs backing up, because it is a serious accusation "Orthodox countries were particularly cruelly suppressed by European Fascism with the aid of the Vatican during the Second World War and the suffering and ethnic cleansing of Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans continues this process today."

I'm sure you'll find a way to turn this argument into me being bigoted and wrong and anti-Protestant, but if you are blind to how you have just associated Catholicism with fascism in a completely unwarranted manner (and actually stated that it is actually a component and not just a collaborator) then there is something utterly wrong with your philosophy. It was a poor manufactured link.

Just a thought here, but perhaps your approach might just be considered a tad charmless?

The general form here, is to wait until the third or so encounter before rudely bludgeoning opponent opinions; unless, that is, there are 'sequel' precidents of long standing, that foreshorten the requirement of good manners.

Insofar as an individual or policy being "extreme left or extreme right" they or it are part of a circular continuum the one single litmus test to be applied to ascertain their true nature must be whether or not the term anti semetic can be shown to exist in their utterings. A well known euphimism used to be the description "cosmopolitan". It was not difficult to read between the lines a couple of years ago when "bankers" was the substitute. The incestuous union of far right and far left commenters in their attitude to Israel when in fact they mean Jews is a clear indication that differentials are increasingly difficult to discern. The EDL`s pitiful attempts to publicise its handful of Jewish members was an attempt to square its circle. Even the Dutchman Wilders lauded by YG has been caught out with his party`s support for the banning of Shechita, traditional Jewish method of animal slaughter shown to be more humane than less than perfect pre stunning. Truly there is no logic; only intolerance under various wrappers.

Both Left and Right are to blame methinks, the tit for tat ping pong of spite and insult and for what?, a Frankenstein Monster on the rampage, a plague on both their houses, no wonder the average Joe has disconnected.

His Grace has invited Mr Atkinson, whom you quote, to explain further. It is, however, telling that your assessment of an otherwise 'quite brilliant' post is fundamentally reassessed when Mr Atkinson articulates a view and perspective on history with which you happen to disagree. Only last week, The Catholic Herald made a spirited defence of General Franco, which His Grace found quite abhorrent. The man did, after all, slaughter around 100,000 people. But because the Roman Catholic Church did quite well out of it, the Herald was content to publish an astonishingly ignorant and offensive piece.

He previously parodied left-wing thought as announcing that: "Truth + non-Truth = A new ‘truth’.For example, Pre-born child + Woman’s right to choose = the option for electing for an abortion."

A legitimate Hegelian or Marxist synthesis is supposed to preserve what is rational in the thesis and antithesis but cancel what is irrational. In D.Singh's caricature the antithesis is presented as entirely irrational, so eliminating the possibilty of a legitimate synthesis. So that is an example of misuse.

Sorry if this has diverged too far from the original point of the thread.

Stan ~ This is moving beyond the beloved bickering of Left vs Right, it's about good vs evil....you know....colonisation ......slavery...... do you see those in a cold Left and Right sort of way, or do you get a little bit heated?

@ Oswin (14.21). His Grace is more than capable of giving as good as he gets - and paid me back in kind (or unkind, if you prefer). Besides, I thought I sugared my criticisms in quite a thick coating of due deference; and I also didn't resort to ad hominem remarks, unlike His Grace, but limited my pejoratives to His article not Himself.

Being part of the University Cathsoc, I inevitably have gained several Spanish friends. Apparently Franco is quite a marmite character in Spain and despite his war crimes it seems that he was probably better than the alternative. I haven't read the article in the Herald myself (I have a funny relationship with Catholic newspapers as they can often be very unCatholic), but I hope it was not as one-sided as it seems. If it was a flat out defence then I would hold it in no esteem.

DerekS on the Hegelian (or Marxian) dialectic: it is ‘to preserve what is rational in the thesis and antithesis but cancel what is irrational’.

The Proletariat + The Ruling Class = Revolution

The Revolution + The Dictatorship of the Proletariat = The Classless Society

The dialectic fails to explain the existence of the Middle Class.

What you don’t understand is why Hegel introduced dialectics.

Until his time thinkers thought on the basis of (A is A and A is not non-A) every thesis has its own anti-thesis (classical Greek and Judaeo-Christian mode of thinking). On the basis of this method they could not find a unifying theory to the big questions of philosophy.

So (they went mad) and introduced a new way of thinking: the Hegelian dialectic (in the abstract).

Marx came along and said ‘I have turned Hegel on his head’. He took the Hegelian dialectic from the abstract world of thought and installed it into the material world. That is why Marxian mode of thought is called dialectical materialism.

I'd like to say, though, that "doing quite well" is a relative term, as the alternative was religiocide under the socialists. Seeking safety under fascists is not a dishonourable thing to do when both sides are just as bad as each other.

I never claimed, by the way, that I "fundamentally re-assessed" the post based on your quoting of Mr Atkinson. In fact the most logical deduction to make is that I thought that it was only the specific quotes I made that were problematic. I am a reasonable man and can see that just because someone is wrong in one respect doesn't make him wrong in all.

Stan ~ This is moving beyond the beloved bickering of Left vs Right, it's about good vs evil....you know....colonisation ......>>slavery<<...... do you see those in a cold Left and Right sort of way, or do you get a little bit heated?

Why the difference Stan?

_____

A bit of extra emphasis to help you, but, if, which line is confusing you?

Phhh! Touchy today, aren't we, Your Grace! Now the fact that you are 'being' or coming across as touchy doesn't make you a touchy person - just as "being wilfully deceitful" by selectively referring to the Croats' crimes against the Serbs but not the Serbs' crimes against the Croats and Muslims (something, I note, which you have not acknowledged) does not make your character "wilfully deceitful".

You, on the other hand, did call me "woefully ignorant", which of course I am. The statement is an ad hominem attack even if correct.

But perhaps you think I'm being too jesuitical. At least, I'm not being sarcastic, as you are [being] - not that you yourself are a sarcastic person, I suppose.

Appreciations to Carl Jacobs for commenting that the difference between Left and Right is that the Left believes man is intrinsically good. As G. K. Chesterton remarked and as we can see from the unbridled corruption in the world around us, Original sin is the one doctrine we can be sure about. All of our discussions centre round what are the best policies for a peaceful and stable society and it is clear from the history of the last century that atheism has been the most deadly philosophy the world has ever seen. Yes there has been religious violence but as Royal points out in his book, ‘The God that did not Fail’, Stalin probably killed more people in a single day that the Inquisition killed in its whole history. P.S. I’m not justifying the Inquisition.

You make some very good points, Mr Ahab or is it Mr Leg. Especially on the “incestuous union of far right and far left commenters in their attitude to Israel when in fact they mean Jews.” However your assessment of EDL and points about sh’hita miss the mark, in my opinion.

There are a handful of Jews in the EDL, mostly because Jews, especially young and committed Jews, are quietly evaporating out of the UK and the Continent. There are also only a handful of Jews in the JDL-the Jewish Defense League chapters here, in North America, because it is considered extreme by the majority of Jews, not to mention that its chapters appear to be autocratically run by charismatic, but not too bright oddballs who turn more people off than they attract, regardless of the underlying philosophy of the movement.

I find attacks against sh’hita problematic, primarily because I keep strictly kosher and I like my meat, but also because the reasons for the attacks are not always honest. Still, I don’t believe that all opponents can be painted with the antisemitic brush. I charge that over the years our certification agencies have been lazy, secretive and contemptuous of its captive clientele whom it taxes through the nose with ever-stringent rulings which they appear to be pulling out of their kippahs. The shameful Rubashkin scandal and the embarrassingly amateurish spin attempts was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many friends and people I know. It caused quite a few kosher-observant Jews to go vegetarian, although quietly or under various nonsensical pretenses, because of over-reaching and abused prohibitions on loshen hara/”evil speech.”

While the slaughter bans are a favourite theme of antisemites, we can't always blame the antisemites, but must begin with the benefit of doubt and exercise judgment. I think it's also up to our octo- and nonagenarian leaders in the kashruth agencies to discover the joys of retirement, or at least to recognize that they are not in their beloved ghettos of 18th century Lithuania. It costs little to bring in transparency, to hire a few people who are not nephews, cousins and students, to engage in proper public relations and to adopt more modernized methods, most of which do not affect the kosher way of slaughter. Personally, I also hope to see the day when modern Orthodox organizations take up this respectable and holy work, and not leave it as a private monopoly of the ultra-Orthodox.

As an avid lover of meat (especially wine-marinated brisket with pepper corns and slivers of garlic inserted...but I digress) I agree with you. Sh’hita is a far more humane slaughter method than stunning, but only in the right context and process. Because it’s not done in the farm backyard with everyone looking on anymore, it needs some serious tweaking for the mass production factory environment. The foremost authority on all methods of slaughter, Temple Grandin a non-Jewish, disabled genius, who is respected by Jewish and non-Jewish experts in the field, has shown how to do this (google her and you'll be impressed). I’m proud to say that here, in Canada, our kosher slaughterers have been made to follow her recommendations and that our processors work closely with all inspection agencies, which I think is the main reason the sh’hita is not seriously challenged here. This wasn’t the case in Europe, which made it easier for the real antisemites in the “anti” movement to make a case, and it’s still not the case in the US, or worse in Argentina, Uruguay and other places.

Why is it that each reasoned riposte His Grace writes makes him 'touchy'? You impute an emotion and ascribe an insecure physical or mental state which is simply not being experienced by him. It is also ad hominem. But His Grace fully understands, in his inviolable state of serenity, why it may comfort you to believe that you are somehow 'getting' to him.

Splendid! Thank you for this great piece of news! I've not been on her website for quiet a while, and remembered her just now. She is indeed one of the giants our time, a warm human being and a true scientist to the core. I'm a great admirer of her and wish her the very best.

"Are they planning a system like they have in Bangladeshi Madrasas for reading the Koran....I will have to practise my rocking too and fro technique." (Bred in the bone)

I'm not sure of it's origins, but it's also a system traditionally used in Jewish academies, our yeshivas, and is called shuckling by us. I and many others use it when we study texts, struggling with Aramaic, attempting to comprehend the words of our sages. I think it helps to keep one alert, maintains a rhythm and flow and probably helps the circulation, preventing dangerous blood clots from forming. To me, it also feels comforting...proably a distant memory of being rocked as a baby. I think Buddhists also have a similar custom when studying their texts, and I would wager Christian monks and scholars have used similar methods for the same reasons.

I wouldn't read the Guardian while shuckling, though...well, I wouldn't read the Guardian under most circumstances anyway.

Good old Rodney, the elder brother of comedian Rowan Atkinson. Looks like he sought his brother's advice for this email.

He presents a poor understanding of 'Fascism' and grossly misrepresents 'Roman Catholicism'.

The social and political theories of the Church do not carry Magisterium weight at all and most certainly are not seen as infallible. Neither does the Church seek the subordination of the nation state and democracy to a global religion! The Church is very clear about the division between Church and State.

His historical summary of the Roman Catholic Church borders on the delusional! The Vatican aided European Fascism during WW2 and continues to assist ethnic cleaning in the Balkans?? Unbelievable!

Left wing, Right Wing, Liberal, what does it matter anymore?, there`s not a single blade of grass between them, the money power and death roadshow goes on with a guest appearance from a nut case when the audience starts to lose the fear factor.

Rebel Saint - on the subject of equating religious upbringing with child abuse, apparently a Christian mother in the US terrified by Harold Camping's end of the world prophecy slit the throats of her two daughters and then herself. Make of that what you will.

It is all very confusing. I had thought myself a traditional Tory; Anglican and relatively right wing. Unfortunately the party has moved off with children at the helm, leaving me still pro Israel (on balance), anti EU (with some Labour people like Benn), pro defence (no one there except the "loony swivel eyed" any more), pro controlled immigration etc. Maybe someone can produce a tick box so I can understand where I am and whom I should vote for. I do not intend to vote for Dave!On a bleaker note some of Your Grace's communicants have commented on the Roman Catholic Church and its behaviour in WW2 and more recently in the Balkans.I would say there is a great deal to find out about its financing of "Operation Storm". I think one should distinguish however between the Church and the Vatican. One can have concerns about both but more strongly about the latter.

Archbishop Cranmer said ...“ … the papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII, and Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI, which lay the foundations of Roman Catholic social teaching upon which the EU is constructed.”

Is the social teaching of the EU really based on these two encyclicals? Do they contain the seeds of ‘Fascism’ as is implied by the publication, without comment, of Rodney Atkinson’s email?

Pope's in the 20th century have consistently taught that the role of the State is to promote social justice through the protection of rights. The Church’s role was to speak out on social issues and to teach correct social principles.

Rerum Novarum (1891) was concerned with the need for some amelioration for “The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class” in the newly emerging industialising countries. It supported the rights of labour to form unions, rejected communism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property.

He restated the Church’s teaching on private property rights, but recognized that the free operation of market forces must be tempered by moral considerations.

Quadragesimo Anno (May 1931) discusses the ethical implications of the social and economic order. It describes the major dangers for human freedom and dignity arising from unrestrained capitalism and totalitarian communism. It also called for the reconstruction of the social order based on the principles of ‘solidarity’ and ‘subsidiarity’.

Industrialisation resulted in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities got absorbed by larger ones. A society of individuals became a mass and class society. People become egoistic or class-conscious in order to save some freedom for themselves. The Pope called for more solidarity, especially between employers and employees, through new forms of cooperation and communication. Pius drew a negative view of capitalism, especially of the anonymous international finance markets. He identified dangers for small and medium-size enterprises who have insufficient access to capital markets and are squeezed or destroyed by the larger ones. He warned that capital interests can become a danger for states, who would be reduced to be "chained slaves of individual interests".

"Mater et Magistra" (1961) describes a necessity to work towards authentic community in order to promote human dignity. It taught that the state must sometimes intervene in matters of health care, education, and housing.

Centesimus Annus (1991) is partially a refutation of Marxist/communist ideology and a condemnation of the dictatorial regimes that practiced it. The particular historical context in which it was written prompted Pope John Paul II to condemn the horrors of the communist regimes throughout the world. However, the Pope also reserved condemnation for reactionary regimes that persecuted their populations, ostensibly to combat Marxism/communism.

The encyclical also expounds on issues of social and economic justice. The encyclical does include a defense of private property rights and the right to form private associations, including labour unions. These however, are not the primary focus of the encyclicals message. They are treated as natural rights that deserve the protection of the state but are viewed within a broader context of human rights.

In addition to property rights, the other human rights that are included are: the right to a just wage, the right to legitimate rest, hygenic conditions, and limits on working hours, and "justice regrading the employment of women and children".

The State has a role as an agent of justice for the poor and to protect the human rights of all its citizens, repeating the theme from Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum.

Left wing? Right wing? Christian?The principles are not mandatory for Catholics.

Might I comment on one or two of the comments on my contribution to the piece? Here and in my books I try to distinguish between the average Roman Catholic and his religious beliefs on the one hand and the actions of the Vatican which conducts a political campaign on a global scale and has always tried to fight back Orhthodoxy in Europe (with the explusion of Serbs from the Krajina being the latest step.

It was of course German Roman Catholics who were sidelined by the Vatican when the 1934 Concordat exchanged Hitler's emasculation of the Catholic Centre Party in return for the Vatican expanding its cultural and eductaional role in Germany.

As far as that "Jewel in the (Vatican's) Crown" Croatia is concerned the Fascist Ustashe movement (which ruled the Nazi puppet state of Croatia between 1941 and 1945)conducted forced conversions at gun point of Serb Orthodox Christians, with the Croatian Cathloic Church reporting excitedly to Rome the large numbers so converted to "the only true faith". And it was the only recently deceased President of Croatia who wrote 30 years after the war that "genocide is a natural phenomenon, commanded by the Almighty in defence of the only true faith".

After the War the Vatican, disappointed at the defeat of the Axis powers - and especially of Mussolini who had granted substantial additional favours to the Church, shifted its support to Franco's Spain.

When two Croat Generals were recently sentenced to very long prison terms for mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the Krajina it was the Croatian Catholic Church which insisted on their innocence.

It's safe to say, I think, that nothing will ever be the same. Those of us over 40 will recall the unexpected emergence of New Media and the irreversible decline of the Old or Mainstream Media. No more "authoritative" journalists and baritone-voiced talking heads telling us what we may think and say in order to stay respectable.

The hardest hit is, of course, is the befuddled new-New Left, the modern liberals or Corporatists, however we may try to define them. In spite of trying to appear yputhful and "contemporary" with their techno-geegaws, flash-animated PR, "shocking" postures and faux LA gang-speak, they are the true dinosaurs. Their Achilles heel is their comical hubris, which explains how, for example, the elites never expected their global warming/climate change/climate disruption mega-scam to collapse so ingloriously; they thought that they could have a few codgers in lab coats rattle a few incantations and that the New Technology would remain in their hands as a matter of hereditary right...or "social justice."

If you want a quick and hilarious look at old fashioned thinking and desperate and somewhat fascistic authoritarianism pretending to be "hip" and youthful, check out Gavin's RealClimate site, or closer to home, the jujune blog site of our poster here, "britologywatch". No amount of new-speak or verbal hooliganism can mask the miasma of inevitable decline.

I'm not worried. We'll not all be able to march in lockstep ever again, our aliances will grow to be quite complex and temporary, and while our political structures, institutions and ways of thinking are lagging behind in ways we can't even fully understand, sooner or later they'll have to change or catch up. Interesting times ahead, methinks.

A postscript to my pontifications above: I just noted a seeming incongruity. While so many of our shining young minds seem to be retreating into superstitious medievalism, for the lack of a better term, it’s often people like His Grace who have come forth as the intellectual avant garde.

HG, I imagine, is no spring chicken, and to the unaware appears to be merely a staunch supporter of the stuffy conservative Establishment. That, by itself, I find totally hilarious, and I’m torn between trumpeting my accidental discovery of this gem, or keeping things to myself.

Rowan Atkinson said "I try to distinguish between the average Roman Catholic and his religious beliefs on the one hand and the actions of the Vatican which conducts a political campaign on a global scale "

This is pretty much my view on the Roman Church. I love the Roman Catholics I have met, i.e. those Priests, Monks and Nuns, who have done so much to advance my own personal faith, those who are my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

Yet it seems that when one becomes a Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal, the shift from Christ to 'wordly' politics and a defence of the Vatican politics, becomes and is a disgrace (e.g. as His Grace's posts about the mass murderer, racist, and general tyrant Robert Mugabe) .

Note - I say this as a 'damnable ecumenical heretic' Anglican who would rejoice at the news flash of a reunion of the Christian Churches- Anglicans, Catholics, Methodist, Baptists, Orthodox, Charismatics, Salvation Army, Evangelicals, Protestants etc.

PS- I wonder what would happen if the Anglicans made Canterbury a seperate 'City State' with its own diplomats etc...

PPS- On the thread below, there are a few who are attacking the English Viking. It would seem that me and Viking have not got on well from the start, but I would ask that people do not kick a man when he is down. It is unChristian and therefore wrong. We should be praying for Viking, his friends and family during this terrible hour and the dark events that have happened in Norway over recent days.

tony b ~ >>I DID NOT SAY<< the BBC could have prevented 50 million corpses, >>I am saying<< a certain proven high calibre leader (doctor*) might have done >>if<< he'd not been anti-democratically (illegally) muffled by an organisation financed by the same soon to be dead (cancer*) Britons he was trying to protect from a threat called the Na.....

An apposite and timely overview of the problem from a subtle yet uncompromising analyst and critic. A question: What do the following countries/nations have in common: Austria, France, Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Western Ukraine, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile etc.? One clue - they have all had a fascist dictatorship at some point in the 20th Century.

Ah, I see - you are engaging in pointless what ifs. Very few people were listening to Churchill then, obviously wrongly. It seems odd to blame that on the BBC of today..I imagine it's not still being run by the same people?

May I recommend two publications to Your Grace and your communicants?One is "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg which shows that there was a huge cross-over of ideas between fascism and "progressive" socialism/communism.George Bernard Shaw advocated "humnane" gas chambers for the unproductive and H G Wells suggested to the young Liberals that they should start a fascist movement because Fabian socialism was "too nice"!

The other is the ultra traditionalist RC monthly" Christian Order" which you can Google. The editor's views on the EU and the Blair/Brown/Cameron dispensation would, in general, not be out of place in your Grace's blog.

With regard to Vatican collusion in Balkan genocide: Pius XII received regular reports from Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb on the "Policy of Thirds" for Serbian inhabitants of Croatia ( Convert one third, kill one third, expel one third) and Roman Catholic clergy were prominent as officers in death squads and extermination camps. There are plenty of pictures of the papal nuncio giving the fascist salute to their forces. Stepinac enthusiastically supported the Ustashe government. Pius XII received the Croatian leader, Ante Pavelic in the Vatican.

The Vatican also facilitated the flight of the Croatian Ustase leadership to South America, along with the state treasury. Individual Croatian Roman Catholics, lay and clerical, showed great courage in performing acts of mercy against the background of the most horrendous massacre (proportionately) in wartime Europe.

The present Pope recently visited Zagreb and commemorated the blessed memory of the same Archbishop Stepinac, who has already been beatified.

For a balanced account of the Srebrenica atrocities,I would recommend the Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie whose article in the Globe and Mail can be Googled.

It's not the same as a statement, very >>different<<, this isn't my dept.

Another re-read required, and try re-reading your own comment about "pointless* what ifs". Churchill's credibility isn't a "pointless what ifs", to us with gratitude. Therefore, your (so) what if the BBC blocked Churchill's 'voice' in '37 - '39, hints that you don't rate Churchill's credibility.

We won tony, it's in the bag, why are you still doubting Churchill would not have succeed >>if<< he had been granted the all important, what-legal-authority, BBC political approval, do you still view him as unproven or doubt his trustworthiness to have got the job done and averted 50 million deaths? Why do you use the word "pointless"?

Quack....quack....tony.

Trying thinking first, re-read all again, do not respond until you fully understand the paragraph above of this text.

And I might possibly reply, ONE WORD in my mouth again, and it's curtains.

Thank you Avi, Rodney and Anon for your comments.I have spent many years in Eastern Europe including two in Croatia and the role of the Vatican in the Balkans I regard as having been unChristian. The Irish Taoiseach's speech is pretty uncompromising about the role of the RC Church in Ireland too. Indulgence, politics and immorality, I am afraid.Given these matters, what idiocy can lead any former C of E priest into the Ordinariate without his conscience being troubled? If concentration on the role of women in the ministry is seen as superior to reflection on the RC Church's role in the world (which I had hoped naively was the preaching of God's word), then I truly wonder why people feel the calling. Surely is must be tempered by some worldly understanding of the Vatican, its history and its foreign policy aims?At least the C of E has the Prayer Book Society when one feels the need for redemption....As to my idea for a matrix to find my new political home, I shall ponder on it but I think it may look like a cylinder as the extremes of politics tend to meet at the back having taken a circular path in opposite directions. The first priority must be to negotiate our way out of the EU.

A Norwegian penpal, a conservative chap I've known since my university experiment, emailed me just now to apologize for his government.

I haven't kept up with the news since this afternoon, so I was confused. It turns out that just today, at the time of Norway's darkest time, Norway's embassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, said that "we Norwegians consider the [Israeli so-called] occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel." Wow. He also presumed to opine on how Israel should deal with its serious terrorism problems by advising capitulation: "Can Israel and the Palestinians solve the problems without Hamas? I don’t think so.”

From what what I've been able to gather, Jerusalem has not reciprocated by blaming Norway's government policies for Breivik's terror, nor has it advised Oslo to pry its cheeks open to its own terrorists. I'm glad, because there is never a justification for tasteless ignorance, even under provocation,

My thoughts and prayers will continue to go to the victims and families of this horrible attack in Norway. May the Almighty ease the pain of the parents, the families and friends. And, also, my sincere sympathies to the all the people of Norway for being saddled with an idiotic government and such a moron for a diplomatic representative.

I hope PM Netanyahu throws the bum out. I also trust I won't be the only one in Canada writing my Federal MP (a Conservative, thank goodness) to ask that Svein Sevje be declared a persona non grata on Canadian soil on the grounds of being an insensitive boor and an absolute scheisskopf.

Neither does the Church seek the subordination of the nation state and democracy to a global religion! The Church is very clear about the division between Church and State.

Well, sure it does. Now. Things were a might different back when Pope Boniface VIII issued the (infallible) Papal Bull Unam Sanctum which (infallibly) declared the 'Two Swords Doctrine.' As in:

Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

I won't be putting my kippa-clad head into that buzz-saw of Protestant-Catholic issues, uh-uh-no way, so a word only on your last point.

You wrote, "...there are a few who are attacking the English Viking. It would seem that me and Viking have not got on well from the start, but I would ask that people do not kick a man when he is down. It is unChristian and therefore wrong. We should be praying for Viking, his friends and family during this terrible hour and the dark events that have happened in Norway over recent days." (26 July 2011 20:38)

Good words and amen to that, Mr Twigg. While it's a joy to slaughter each others' ideas and to go at each others' jugulars from time to time, thanks to the sanitized environment of a blog, we can easily forget that there are actual people on the other end of our missives' trajectories.

Online communities are, at the end of those fibre-optic cables still real people communities, even if we don't know what we look like or what our real names are. I was reminded of this on numerous occasions here and most of all when folks joined me, a newbie on His Grace's blog here, in prayer over a distant relative of mine, a boy who barely hung on to life for several days.

As an update on that boy, Julius: He's out of his coma, continuing to regain limbic movement, and while I don't know the medical details of his serious brain damage, my wife tells me that he has been busy furiously updating his Facebook profile and connecting to his buddies. If his brain can navigate its way through that anoying and insiduous social media device, and do it in incomprehensible teenagerish lingo, it's certainly way ahead of mine. Thanks to all again!

Steve: "What has been labelled 'extreme left wing' here is perhaps better termed liberalism. Unlike all on the left or who term themselves 'socialist', liberalism - as has been rightly noted here - commits the fallacy of tolerating only prescribed tolerable views."

I suppose we can all go around in circles about terms and labels here but that's not liberalism, at least as I (a liberal) understand it. I'm trapped by my views into tolerating Islam as a belief system despite my being 1. an atheist, and 2. gay. I'm the same with the Far Right, or the Far Left, in politics. Those two things are not actually intolerable, just undesirable and unpleasant.

Liberalism runs from so-called classical liberalism, which we probably know as libertarianism and which is primarily interested in negative liberty, through to modern liberalism which takes account of aspects of positive liberty to some extent too.

The positive liberty bit is where some of the problems come in because it can just mean (say) encouraging people from very poor backgrounds to consider university by demystifying it or providing bursaries, or it can drift towards paternalism where (say) the State acts as though it knows what's best for the individual irrespective of the individual's own choices. Liberalism aims for the first, Blair et al seemed to aim for the second.

As an example, it seems to me that America tends towards classical liberalism where people are ultimately responsible for themselves, wherever they start in life and with whatever disadvantages that bestows. A sink or swim situation, if you like. Compare this with the UK where the State provides a social security safety net and sometimes tries to offset disadvantage gained through social structure. Equality of access and of opportunities, but not equality of outcomes, if you like.

When one looks at the Conservative party, it seems to me that there are several different core philosophical pulls in it. The right-wing bit is Ancien Régime oriented ie. social conservatism with traditional church, nuclear families, a sense of a ruling class, monarchy, nation state, and so on. The classical liberal bit is focused on individual responsibility (hence, notions of freedom), small state, low taxation, minimal social security, and so on.

It seems to me that those two pulls can cause some overlap in other areas. In the UK, social conservatism tends towards authoritarianism which, when taken with notions of individuals being ultimately responsible for themselves and therefore fully accountable if they break the law, also suggests a strong law and order system which can (as it seemed to do under Michael Howard as Home Secretary) eat back into negative liberty.

The Far Right, at least I am understand the term, simply goes further, potentially much further, in those directions. In the social conservatism sense, it ends up very nationalistic and ultimately with notions of ethnic or racial 'purity'. In the liberal sense, it can end up advocating anarchy as the ultimate small State. With the authoritarian thing together with the nationalistic thing, we potentially end up with fascism, and if the liberal bit gets lost in the mire we end up with fascism and a totalitarian State (see the usual example).

I suppose what I'm trying to say with all that Political Philosophy 101 stuff is that these things are not that amenable to simple labels, that there's a sense of political traditions behind the labels which provide their own context, and that all of them can be distorted out of their normal shape if we want to do so.

Big G's fascism is well-known amongst free thinkers - I've been banned from Comment is Free for over two years.Also, now hacking attention has turned to MGN, there's little enthusiasm there for a situation even worse than Newscorp....http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/hackgate-the-morgan-denials-are-what-you-might-call-rebekah-coulson/

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)